On 22 Nov 2006 Christopher Bazley wrote:
On 22/11/06, Chika <miyuki(a)crashnet.org.uk> wrote:
> On 21 Nov, David W Mills <david(a)tenmagpies.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> > <dhwild(a)talktalk.net> wrote:
> > > Richard Porter <ricp(a)minijem.plus.com> wrote:
> > >> If you go to the Transport for London web site at
> > >> http://www.tfl.gov.uk/tfl/
you get a whole load of garbage about
> > >> marquees just under the site navigation. Should NetSurf be
> > >> suppressing this or is it faulty coding on the web page?
> > >
> > >It doesn't show any such garbage with O2, so there must be some
> > >interaction between the coding and Netsurf. I notice that the source
The garbage does show on O1.
> > And here it hung my Iyonix whilst navigating to another
> So much for website accessibility, something which I thought was an
> obligatory part of all government websites these days. Or did I sit
> through a lecture on this for nowt?
AFAICT, the problem is actually with NetSurf (sort of).
Normal behaviour for user agents that don't understand HTML tags is to
simply ignore them. In the case of browsers that don't support
scripts, this means displaying verbatim all text between <script> and
be enclosed between '<!--' and '//-->', so that older browsers
hide it as if it was an HTML comment. Since browsers that don't
understand the <script> tag are increasingly rare nowadays, I imagine
that this practice of hiding scripts will die out.
What I don't understand is why NetSurf, which could easily recognise
the text between it and </script>. Perhaps it is purism on the part of
I think in this case it's not. The bit of script in question has no
comment delimiters. Moreover the </script> is inside a variable:
var TfLTickerContentButton = '<a class="button2"
href="http://alerts.tfl.gov.uk" title="Subscribe to our Travel Updates
which is then document.written at the end of the script:
As I see it, NS is correctly omitting everything between <script> and
</script>. Without parsing the script it can't know that what follows
the </script> is still part of the script. Therefore I conclude that
this one is caused by incompetent authoring (50 validation errors) and
not down to NetSurf.
|_|. _ Richard Porter http://www.minijem.plus.com/